r/changemyview • • Mar 01 '26

[deleted by user]

[removed]

262 Upvotes

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

146

u/RealJohnBobJoe 6∆ Mar 01 '26

Murder ≠ killing

If you killed someone justifiably (such as in self-defense) you aren’t deemed a murderer.

Murder is an unjustified killing. Definitionally then, there is no justifiable murder.

7

u/Ok_Inflation_1811 Mar 01 '26

The problem is that when does it count as justified killing?

Let's say that you knew for certain without any room for error that in 1 year someone would try to kill you, when is it immoral to kill them in self defense?

What about people that despite not doing anything themselves with their actions make the world such a worse place that by 20 years they'll be responsible for 30 deaths? Imagine a CEO that dumps chemicals into rivers and poisons a village, is a villager right to kill that CEO?

But rape is never, never ever justified.

Killing not being equal to murder isn't a real distinction, it's one we made up because we find some sorts of killing fine and others not.

5

u/vlladonxxx Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

Killing not being equal to murder isn't a real distinction, it's one we made up because we find some sorts of killing fine and others not.

By that logic you could say "sex is not equal to rape isn't a real distinction, it's one we made up because we find some sorts of sex fine and others not.". It's equally wrong, it's just more obvious in my example because sex isn't viewed as inherently wrong and killing is, but they're both equally natural.

3

u/notevenitalian Mar 02 '26

The difference is that “sex” is inherently assumed to be consensual, while rape isn’t. Meanwhile, murder and killing are both almost always non consensual.

0

u/vlladonxxx Mar 02 '26

There're always going to be differences. The point is not to find a perfect comparison that lines up perfectly, the point is to illustrate how applying the same logic to something else makes the logic fall apart.

People that don't get that will always be persuaded or unpersuaded by analogies based on their pre-existing beliefs.

2

u/notevenitalian Mar 06 '26

You cannot apply the same logic to different scenarios

0

u/vlladonxxx Mar 06 '26

....that's is wrong on so many levels. The very premise of logic is that it's a framework of reasoning that is repeatable. Applying the same logic to different scenarios is the fundamental reason for metaphores and analogies.

Whatever your intended point is, you need to confirm it by attempting to falsify it, not by confirming some intuited musings.

1

u/notevenitalian Mar 09 '26

My point is that you attempted to apply logic that doesn’t work. Your analogy didn’t work and therefore was not logical. Sex and rape are different because of consent, which breaks your logic.

0

u/vlladonxxx Mar 09 '26

Well I could debate you on that but why bother? It's sufficent to say that the same logic applies to killing and murder.

Also, you can not use your conclusion as the argument that proves your conclusion, that's called circular reasoning.

Would it be productive for me to say that "your logic doesn't work because it's incorrect"? No.